> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: 24 January 2018 08:10
> To: Ross Lagerwall <[email protected]>
> Cc: Andrew Cooper <[email protected]>; Paul Durrant
> <[email protected]>; Wei Liu <[email protected]>; George Dunlap
> <[email protected]>; Ian Jackson <[email protected]>;
> Stefano Stabellini <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Konrad
> Rzeszutek Wilk <[email protected]>; Tim (Xen.org) <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/6] x86/hvm: Provide
> XEN_DMOP_relocate_memory
>
> >>> On 23.01.18 at 16:22, <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Provide XEN_DMOP_relocate_memory, a limited version of
> > XENMEM_add_to_physmap to allow a deprivileged QEMU to move VRAM
> when a
> > guest programs its BAR. It is equivalent to XENMEM_add_to_physmap with
> > space == XENMAPSPACE_gmfn_range.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ross Lagerwall <[email protected]>
> > Reviewed-by: Paul Durrant <[email protected]>
> > ---
> >
> > Changed in v4:
> > * Renamed add_to_physmap to relocate_memory.
> > * Instead of checking for overflow, handle using continuation.
>
> Strictly speaking at least the latter change should have resulted in
> Paul's R-b to be dropped. But I'm pretty sure he's happy for it to
> be kept.
FAOD, I am.
Paul
>
> > --- a/xen/include/public/hvm/dm_op.h
> > +++ b/xen/include/public/hvm/dm_op.h
> > @@ -368,6 +368,23 @@ struct xen_dm_op_remote_shutdown {
> > /* (Other reason values are not blocked) */
> > };
> >
> > +/*
> > + * XEN_DMOP_relocate_memory : Relocate GFNs for the specified guest.
> > + * Identical to XENMEM_add_to_physmap with
> > + * space == XENMAPSPACE_gmfn_range.
> > + */
> > +#define XEN_DMOP_relocate_memory 17
> > +
> > +struct xen_dm_op_relocate_memory {
> > + /* Number of GFNs to process. */
> > + uint32_t size;
> > + uint32_t pad;
> > + /* Starting GFN to relocate. */
> > + uint64_aligned_t src_gfn;
> > + /* Starting GFN where GFNs should be relocated. */
> > + uint64_aligned_t dst_gfn;
> > +};
>
> Sadly additions after the initial introduction of dmop have been
> done without IN / OUT annotations, so I assume you not noticing
> such no neighboring declarations lead to you not adding any such
> here. I think we want to clarify though that due to the way
> the continuation logic above works, all fields are IN/OUT, with
> their ultimate OUT state undefined. I don't see a major problem
> adding a suitable comment while committing. With that added
> Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <[email protected]>
>
> Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
